R v Ricard David Love & Anor

Where confiscation proceedings rest on particular criminal conduct, a final jury conviction which necessarily established that a defined sum was criminal property may support including that sum as benefit. A later assertion that the money had a legitimate source, unsupported by timely evidence and contrary to the basis of conviction, cannot reopen that conclusion. Procedural complaints do not undermine confiscation unless they disclose an error or unfairness material to the benefit or available-amount findings. Confiscation proceedings may begin while an application to appeal conviction or sentence remains unresolved, because the conviction remains effective unless displaced.

Following convictions for benefit fraud, false identity-document offences and converting criminal property, the Crown Court at Wood Green made confiscation orders against both applicants. The order against Ms Saintclair required payment of £398,274.97. The order against Mr Love required payment of £237,003.73, including £90,000 treated as benefit from his conviction for converting criminal property.

After the Single Judge refused leave, both applicants renewed their applications to challenge the confiscation orders. Ms Saintclair advanced procedural and fair-hearing complaints. Mr Love contended that the £90,000 derived from a legitimate music project and sought to rely on further forensic evidence. The central issue was whether those matters undermined the benefit findings or the propriety of the orders.

1. The renewed applications were dismissed. Neither applicant identified an error of fact or law in the confiscation orders, or any unfairness capable of affecting the findings as to benefit and available amount.

2. Ms Saintclair’s complaints concerning representation, the conduct of the hearing by video link, interpretation, seized property and the timing of the proceedings did not cast doubt on the assessed benefit or available amount. The court agreed with the Single Judge that the application was without merit.

3. Mr Love’s conviction on count 20 concerned the specific £90,000 transferred into his account. The jury could convict only if sure that the sum was derived from Ms Saintclair’s criminal activity and that he knew or suspected that fact. Accordingly, in confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the finding that the £90,000 was benefit from his particular criminal conduct was correct and inevitable.

4. It was too late for Mr Love to introduce proposed forensic evidence concerning an alleged legitimate source of funds. Such evidence could have been commissioned after charge and before, or during, the confiscation proceedings. It could not displace the final conviction or reopen the distinction drawn at trial between the £90,000 transfer and earlier funds associated with the music project.

5. The sentencing judge’s reference to money said to have come from charitable benefactors did not question the count 20 conviction. Read in context, it addressed the moral character of Mr Love’s own account of that separate explanation. There was also no unfairness in commencing confiscation proceedings before the outstanding applications concerning conviction and sentence had been resolved, and the one-month payment period was reasonable.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — renewed applications for leave to appeal the confiscation orders were dismissed: [2024] EWCA Crim 465.
• Crown Court at Wood Green — HHJ Dodd KC made confiscation orders against the applicants on 9 September 2022 following their convictions.